Transcript 8.1 Babylonia (900-539) & Egypt (1000-525)

8. Babylonia (900-539) & Egypt
(1000-525)
BOT612: Old Testament
Backgrounds
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)
• "The first important Babylonian king of the
millennium, Nabu-apla-iddina (ca. 887-885
b.c.), had a treaty with his Assyrian
counterparts. His reign is a highlight in a
bleak period of Babylonian history. The
country's borders were secure, internal
stability prevailed, and energy was devoted to
reconstruction and restoration. For example,
thanks to the discovery of a text of Nabuapla-iddina's inscribed on a stone tablet, we
know that the king sponsored the rebuilding
of the temple of the sun-god (Shamash) at
Sippar."
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)
• When Nabu-apla-iddina died, his successor,
Marduk-zakir-shumi I (ca. 854-819 BCE),
renewed the old treaty with Assyria, which
was now ruled by Shalmaneser III (858-824
BCE). . . . The renewal of the treaty proved
advantageous for Marduk-zakir-shumi; when
his brother led a rebellion and seized some of
Babylonia for himself, Marduk-zakir-shumi
called upon Shalmaneser to intervene,
invoking the treaty between them. . . . After
this incident, Babylonia continued to enjoy
peace with Assyria and general prosperity."
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)
• "When Shalmaneser was getting very old, a
major rebellion broke out in Assyria and
continued for some years. It appears that one
of Shalmaneser's sons, Shamshi-Adad, sought
and gained Babylonian support . . . the
Babylonian king used the occasion to demote
the Assyrian to a lower status so that in the
treaty he appears as the lesser party. When
the rebellion had been suppressed and
Shamshi-Adad, the fifth king of that name,
had been crowned, he invaded Babylonia,
presumably out of revenge for the humiliating
treaty imposed upon him. This is the first
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)
time for almost a century that there was open
conflict between the two states. ShamshiAdad V led three expeditions into Babylonia,
capturing major Babylonian cities, including
Babylon, and Babylonia was forced to pay
tribute."
• "The Assyrian Adad-narari III (810-783 b.c.)
continued the aggressive stance toward
Babylonia, although it is unknown how many
campaigns he sent there. A treaty favorable
toward Assyria was imposed upon Babylonia,
which again had to pay tribute. Fortunately
for Babylonia, this reign marked the end of a
A Period of Weakness (1000-748 BCE)
• troublesome time with Assyria. By the end of
Adad-narari's reign, Assyria was once again
hard pressed by another power, this time
Urartu, and had no time to meddle in
Babylonia. Thus for the first half of the 8th
century b.c., Babylonia, free of foreign
invasion, seemed to be in a position to enjoy
peaceful pursuits."
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)
• "Babylonia's fate was closely linked to that of
Assyria throughout this era, particularly so in
the Sargonid age in Assyria. When Tiglathpileser III (744-727 b.c.) took the Assyrian
throne, Nabu-nasir (747-734 b.c.) had barely
begun his rule at Babylon, a rule that held
great promise for Babylonia: the borders
were secure, the state was stable internally,
the king encouraged literary and scientific
projects (including astronomical observations
and chronicle writing), and Tiglath-pileser III
concluded a treaty with Nabu-nasir."
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)
• "The death of Nabu-nasir brought an abrupt
end to Babylonia's fortunes. Mukin-zer, the
leader of a tribe of Chaldeans in S Babylonia,
attempted to seize the Babylonian throne,
forcing Tiglath-pileser III to respond by
invading Babylonia, pushing Mukin-zer and
his forces back south, and having himself
crowned as king of Babylonia. Thus, for the
first time, Assyria and Babylonia were a
united kingdom, ruled by an Assyrian
monarch."
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)
• "To understand subsequent events in Babylonian
history, it is necessary to look briefly at the various
groups now present in the Babylonian plain, for the
Babylonian population was quite heterogeneous.
Essentially there were four elements: "native"
Babylonians, Elamites, Arameans, and
Chaldeans. . . . The most active of all anti-Assyrian
agitators in Babylonia at this time was MerodachBaladan II. He was the leader of a Chaldean tribe
called Yakin and first took an active military role
toward the end of Tiglath-pileser III's reign. When
Sargon II (721-705 b.c.) ascended the Assyrian
throne, Merodach-baladan had himself crowned
king at Babylon. The Assyrian tried unsuccessfully
to depose Merodach-baladan, who ruled Babylonia
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)
for the next decade. But in 710 b.c., Sargon finally
defeated the Chaldeans, and Merodach-baladan
took refuge in the S marshes."
• "Babylonia, as represented by Merodachbaladan and other leaders, staunchly resisted
Sennacherib. Merodach-baladan actually
regained the throne at Babylon briefly in 703
b.c., forcing the Assyrian to turn from other
concerns (Palestine) and invade Babylonia.
Merodach-baladan again fled south to the
marshes, but over the next few years he
stirred up opposition to the Assyrian
occupation. Sennacherib attempted to rule
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)
Babylonia through puppet kings while he led the
Assyrian army in an abortive attempt to capture
Merodach-baladan. The critical point in this
phase of Assyro-Babylonian affairs was the entry
of Elam into the fray. The Elamites invaded
Babylonia, captured Sennacherib's son and heir
(who had been crowned king of Babylonia), and
carried him off to exile and death."
• "Sennacherib was enraged by this, regarding it
as Babylonian treachery. He launched vicious
campaigns first against Elam and then against
Babylonia, finally capturing Babylon itself in 689
b.c."
Under Assyrian Rule (742-627 BCE)
• "The next Assyrian king, Esarhaddon (680-669 b.c.),
set himself the task of reconciliation with and
reconstruction of Babylonia. This was a wise policy
and won for him a reign untroubled on the S
border."
• "Esarhaddon had decided that when he died his
kingdom would be divided between two of his sons,
and thus Ashurbanipal (668-627 b.c.) came to rule
over Assyria and Shamash-shuma-ukin (667-648
b.c.) to rule over Babylonia. . . . Increasing unease
broke into open battle in 652 b.c. and continued for
four years, to 648 b.c. Assyria quickly gained the
upper hand, and, after a long siege, Babylon fell and
Shamash-shuma-ukin perished in his burning
palace."
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)
• "Out of the ashes of a Babylonia scorched by the
Assyrians in 689 and 648 b.c. rose a new dynasty
destined to establish both an independent Babylonia
and Babylonian rule over the former Assyrian
empire. The founder of this dynasty was
Nabopolassar (625-605 b.c.), a Chaldean who was
crowned king at Babylon after defeating an Assyrian
army in Babylonia. No details of Nabopolassar's
background are known; nor is there much firm
evidence about the situation before the events
leading up to his coronation. It is apparent, however,
that the Babylonians were actively rebelling against
the Assyrians and trying to expel them from their
land. Nabopolassar became the champion of this
freedom fight, and in 626 b.c. he
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)
led Babylonian troops to lay siege to Nippur,
which contained an Assyrian garrison. The
siege was lengthy and the people so
impoverished that some of them, as we know
from contracts discovered at Nippur, were
forced to sell their children into slavery so
that they could buy food. Eventually the siege
was lifted when an Assyrian army arrived and
pursued the Babylonian troops as far as
Babylon."
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)
• "During the early years of Nabopolassar's
reign, the Babylonian offensive went from
success to success, and Assyria gradually
withdrew to the north. When Nabopolassar
pushed up to the Upper Euphrates region,
Egypt became alarmed and sent aid to
Assyria (616 b.c.). Such an alliance had never
existed before and is a symbol of the
momentous changes occurring in ancient
Near Eastern politics. About the same time
that Egypt aligned itself with Assyria, the
Medes allied themselves with the Babylonians.
The Medes had long been established in W
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)
Iran and more recently had spread their control
westward into eastern and central Anatolia. For the
next four years the Medes and Babylonians pounded
away at Assyrian holdings and at the Assyrian
heartland itself. In 614 Asshur was captured. Then,
in 612 the allies laid siege to Nineveh. The siege
lasted all summer before the city fell. A remnant of
Assyrians escaped W to Harran, where a miniAssyrian dynasty was established. Nabopolassar,
supported by the Medes, attacked Harran in 610
and forced the combined armies of Assyria and
Egypt to flee to Syria. In 609 this army returned and
made a vain attempt to dislodge the Babylonians and
Medes from Harran."
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)
• "The decisive battle between the two sides
came in 605 at Carchemish. Egypt now stood
alone, for nothing is ever heard again of an
Assyrian army. By this time the Babylonian
army was being led in alternate years by the
king Nabopolassar and his son and heir
Nebuchadnezzar. In 605 the son was in charge
of the expedition. Nebuchadnezzar led a
surprise attack on the Egyptian army at
Carchemish. The Egyptians were caught
inside the walls but managed to break out and
avoid being sealed in by a siege. The fighting
was fierce, and the Egyptians eventually
Imperial Beginnings (626-605 BCE)
broke and ran with the Babylonians in hot
pursuit, slaying every man they could catch.
This was the ultimate victory for Babylonia.
Assyria was destroyed, and Egypt had lost
any credibility in Asia. Eventually the
Babylonians would follow this up by
campaigning to and claiming all of SyriaPalestine. But there was a slight delay. News
arrived after the Battle of Carchemish that
Nabopolossar had died. Nebuchadnezzar
returned swiftly to Babylon, where he was
crowned king."
Nabopolassar Cylindar
The Empire (604-556 BCE)
• "No sooner were the coronation ceremonies
over for Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE) ,
after the death of his father, then he hastened
back to Syria to resume his campaigning. He
had defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish in
605 b.c., but this did not automatically bring
Syria-Palestine under Babylonian control. In
the following years he led a series of
expeditions W of the Euphrates. Sometimes
local rulers acknowledged him as lord and
paid tribute without question; at other times,
they resisted and the Babylonian army laid
siege to their cities."
The Empire (604-556 BCE)
• "By 601 Nebuchadnezzar felt his hold over
Syria-Palestine was strong enough to permit a
campaign against Egypt. This was a mistake.
A pitched battle between the two forces in
Egypt resulted in a stalemate, and
Nebuchadnezzar, choosing discretion, led his
army back to Babylon. After a year spent
repairing the damage to his army and
equipment, he resumed his Syrian campaigns.
This was urgent, for the Babylonian
humiliation in Egypt had encouraged W
states to rebel."
The Empire (604-556 BCE)
• "Jerusalem during this period was torn
between two factions, one pro-Egyptian and
one pro-Babylonian. The king, Jehoiakim,
and his supporters were in favor of siding
with the Egyptians, but the prophet Jeremiah
preferred the Babylonians. Although
Jehoiakim had paid tribute to Babylonia after
the Battle of Carchemish, Babylonia's
ignominious withdrawal from Egypt in 601
led him to renounce his allegiance to
Babylonia and throw in his lot with Egypt.
Nebuchadnezzar could not let this key center
fall away, and so in 597 he besieged and
The Empire (604-556 BCE)
captured Jerusalem. He appointed a new king,
Zedekiah, and imposed a heavy tribute.
Jehoiakin, son of Jehoiakim who had died, his
family, and many leading citizens were taken
as captives to Babylon . . . ."
• In the years after 597, Zedekiah allowed
himself gradually to be persuaded by those
who favored Egypt. Eventually, with a
promise of Egyptian support, he abandoned
allegiance to Babylonia, refusing to pay
tribute. In 587 Nebuchadnezzar again
invaded Judah, capturing various cities as he
marched on Jerusalem. These Judean cities
The Empire (604-556 BCE)
were not plundered but were treated mercifully
in a deliberate attempt to weaken the resolve of
Jerusalem's defenders. Therefore, when
Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem,
Jeremiah and his supporters pointed to the
lenient treatment of other cities and vainly urged
capitulation. Meanwhile, the Egyptian army
moved into Judah and tried, unsuccessfully, to lift
the Babylonian siege. Then the Babylonians
captured Jerusalem. The city was plundered and
destroyed, its leaders were executed, and most of
the remaining population were carried off in exile
to Babylonia."
Blake’s Nebuchadnezzar
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
Babylon
The Empire (604-556 BCE)
• "After his death he was succeeded by some
relatively unimportant monarchs, including
Evil-Merodach and Nergal-Sharezzer. If the
kingdom was still strong, it was nevertheless
no longer expanding."
Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)
• "Nabonidus . . . . While forces portending
doom to Babylonia gathered on the horizons,
he found time to promote a religious change,
to undertake major building operations, and
even to live in the desert for ten years. He did
not, however, ignore the external dangers to
Babylonia's security - far from it. When at
last the Persian army invaded Babylonia, he
fought valiantly but in vain to repel them."
Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)
• "Nabonidus' religious changes provide a key to
his other actions. He was not in the direct line
for the throne (one Babylonian text called him
a "usurper", and it is unknown how he became
king. When Nabonidus came to power, he
promoted the cult of the moon and sought out
similar cults in Babylonia. Thus he favored the
Babylonian deity Sin, god of the moon and the
city Ur. He had little interest in Babylon's god,
Marduk. This brought down upon his head the
wrath of the Marduk priests and supporters
who, among other things, wrote literary works
condemning Nabonidus for his sacrilege."
Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)
• "A second unique feature of this king's reign
was his ten-year self-imposed exile in Tema,
an oasis in the Arabian desert. While he lived
there his son, Belshazzar, managed affairs at
Babylon. . . . It is a fact that pre-Islamic
Arabs in the Arabian peninsula revered the
moon-god, and this may have been an
important motivation for Nabonidus, given
his intense interest in this cult. But this would
not exclude one or more other reasons, such
as an attempt to regain his health, for the long
exile."
Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)
• "The third area of special interest in this
reign was the manner in which Nabonidus
conducted his building operations. It was, of
course, usual for a Babylonian king to erect or
restore monumental buildings, as Nabonidus
did. What was unusual was the zeal with
which he sought out ancient statues and
inscriptions of his predecessors when digging
in the foundations of old buildings. This
characteristic has won for Nabonidus the
epithet "the world's first archaeologist"
among modern scholars."
Nabonidus & the Fall of Babylon (666-539 BCE)
• "The Persians under Cyrus the Great had
been gathering around the borders of the
Babylonian empire, preparing for a major
assault which took place in 539 b.c. The
Persians came down the Diyala river, and
Nabonidus, at the head of his army, met and
fought with them at Opis near modern
Baghdad. Nabonidus was defeated. The
Persians then marched on Babylon where,
according to a native source, the Babylonians
opened the gates and with rejoicing welcomed
Cyrus as a deliverer from the "tyrant"
Nabonidus."
Belshazzar (556-539 BCE)
• "Son of Nabonidus (556-539 b.c.), the last
king of Babylonia prior to the Persian
conquest, Belshazzar ruled as co-regent for at
least three years while his father was in
Arabia. This arrangement in itself is
important, since it has no parallel in any
other period of Mesopotamian history. There
is no direct evidence that he altered
conditions in southern Mesopotamia in any
way during his father's absence."
Belshazzar (556-539 BCE)
• "He appears to have had ample authority to
give orders to temple officials in Uruk and
Sippar and could even lease out temple land.
His name disappears from the contract tablets
in Nabonidus' thirteenth year; it has been
suggested that this coincides with Nabonidus'
return to Babylonia from Tema."
• Belshazzar commanded Babylonian troops in
the vicinity of Sippar when Cyrus of Persia
conquered Anatolia (545 b.c.). Nothing is
known of his activities after 543 b.c."
Egypt: Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 2126)
• "The era immediately succeeding that of the
New Kingdom (NK) witnessed varied
developments in society, culture, and economy
(Kitchen 1973). Notwithstanding the apparent
paucity of royal inscriptions, much has been
revealed by recent research concentrated on
this hitherto presumed Dark Age of Egypt.
However, the paramount and consistent trend
in the dynasties following the fall of the NK is
one of political decentralization and
corresponding lack of a firm unified
monarchy (Yoyotte 1961). Foreigners, too,
made an impact on the Nile
Egypt: Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 2126)
valley, and not one but three different
contenders for the prize of Egypt left their
mark. First, there were the Libyans, who had
already settled in the north during the reign
of Ramesses III; then Egypt was faced with a
southern incursion, that of the Kishites;
finally, the mighty Assyrians attempted to
conquer the land. As a result, the political
history of this time is difficult to view as a
whole if only because Egypt was not unified
as before."
Egypt: Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 2126)
• "For the sake of simplicity and ease of
comprehension, modern scholarship now uses
the term "Third Intermediate Period" to
cover Dynasties 21–25 (ca. 1069–664 b.c.).
This, in turn, was followed by the Saite Period,
Dyn. 26 (664–525 b.c.), an era of unity.
However, it should be stressed that the 3d
Intermediate Period is purely a global
designation, revealing little about the 400year span of Egyptian history, a time that
witnessed the emergence of a society quite
different than any preceding."
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945
BCE)
• "The last years of Pharaoh Ramesses XI saw a
subtle alteration in the power structure of Egypt.
The famous report of Wenamun (ca. 1076 BCE)
alludes in fairly direct language to the dual
control of Egypt: in the south, control had
effectively passed to the high priest of Amun,
Herihor, while the north was under the de facto
jurisdiction of Smendes from his capital at the
seaport of Tanis in the East Delta. At the death of
the last Ramesside ruler, the two offices passed
smoothly to, respectively, the then incumbent
high priest of Amun Pinudjem and to Pharaoh
Smendes himself."
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945
BCE)
• "Pinudjem I renewed the burials of his royal
ancestors in the Valley of the Kings, albeit
with some possible mistakes in attribution. He
also had himself proclaimed pharaoh in his
own right, the first clear-cut evidence of this
practice from the temple of Khonsu at Thebes.
In the 16th regnal year of Smendes (ca. 1057
b.c.), Pinudjem became the first pharaoh of
the south, while his son Masaharta took the
position of “high priest of Amun.” Although
this was not the start of a civil war, it
essentially created a separate and continuing
dynasty in addition to the royal line of Tanis."
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945
BCE)
• ". . . there are no regnal years associated with
Pinudjem as king, a point worth stressing as it
indicates that Smendes still was superior, if only in
form."
• "With the deaths of Smendes and his shortlived son, the Tanite line then passed on to the
energetic Psusennes I (ca. 1039–991 b.c.).
Although the southern line of high priests
never again rose to claim royalty after
Pinudjem I’s death seven years later,
Psusennes himself took the title of high priest
of Amun (this time in Tanis). He copied the
policy of his southern contemporaries by
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945
BCE)
securing his control over various priestly
offices. Indeed, unlike the administrative
setup of the NK, Dyn. 21 and its successors
reveal the intimate family relationships that
existed between the kings and the religious
benefices in the land."
• "Very little is known concerning the south of
Egypt during the reign of Psusennes and his
successors. The line of Menkheperre
continued to hold the office of High Priest of
Amun, but none of his descendants ever took
the kingship."
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945
BCE)
• The next three Tanite kings, although of
relatively small importance, present
interesting aspects. During the reigns of the
first two, Amenemope and Osorkor(n), now
named “The Elder,” close connections appear
to have been forged between the Tanite court
and Hadad the Edomite (1 Kgs 11:14–22), a
political refugee from the north. It was
probably during these two reigns that Hadad
came to Tanis and secured for himself a place
in exile after the victorious armies of King
David had taken control of his kingdom. This
passive support of an enemy of the Israelite
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945
BCE)
Kingdom was to have repercussions toward the close
of Dyn. 21. Such brief indications of international
maneuverings clearly indicate that the paucity of
our sources for this period does not necessarily
indicate that the Tanite kings eschewed foreign
affairs."
• "The second pharaoh, Osorkor(n) (ca. 984–
978 b.c.), bears a good Libyan name and there
is little doubt . . . that he was not related to
the previous pharaoh. Quite the contrary,
Osorkor(n) was descended from an important
Libyan (or Meshwesh, as they called
themselves) tribe that had settled in the north
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945
BCE)
in Dyn. 20. His father was a tribal emir of great
importance and he himself was the uncle of the
future founder of Dyn. 22."
• "Siamun (ca. 978–959 b.c.) continued to support the
refugee Hadad at his court. However, when the aged
king David of Israel died, he took the opportunity to
support fully Hadad’s return to Edom and at the
same time moved his army north into Philistia
(Malamat 1963: 12–16; Kitchen 1973: 280–83). This
campaign, although minor in comparison to those of
the NK, nevertheless indicates that Tanis regarded
her northern neighbor, the kingdom of Israel, with a
jaundiced if not jealous eye. Precisely at David’s
death and coinciding with the problems of royal
Egypt in Dynasty 21 (ca. 1069–945
BCE)
succession in Israel, Siamun moved on Gezer and
seized it. Unfortunately for the Egyptian, events in
Israel had also sped swiftly and Solomon quickly
took control of his father’s kingdom. As a result, the
Tanite monarch made an about-face and, under the
guise of a diplomatic marriage agreement, “gave”
the captured city of Gezer to Solomon as a dowry
with his daughter, thereby cementing an alliance
with his powerful neighbor."
• "The last pharaoh of Dyn. 21 (Psusennes II: ca. 959–
945 b.c.) rounded out the domination of Tanis."
The Libyan Era (Unity): Dyn 22
• "Owing to the complexities of the period
during which the Libyans dominated Egypt, it
is best to divide it into a time of comparative
unity (ca. 945–850 b.c.), followed by a gradual
disintegration leading to the fragmented
political structure so well evident (c. 750 b.c.)
just before Assyria and the Kushites became
interested in the Nile Valley."
The Libyan Era (Unity): Dyn 22
• Sheshonk I (ca. 945–924 BCE):
– "He followed the practice of his less successful
predecessors of Dyn. 21 in cementing control over
the Theban hierarchy through appointments of
his relatives."
– Sheshonk’s well-known campaign into Asia, for
example, was not one of conquest. Quite the
contrary, he seized upon an opportune time to
damage the power of his immediate neighbor to
the north by marching into Palestine a few years
after the death of Solomon. Recent work has
revealed that rather than attempt to annex
property, Sheshonk preferred to despoil the
territories of Israel and Judah, which had the
The Libyan Era (Unity): Dyn 22
added advantage of providing needed booty in order
to pay his army. Certainly the campaign was a success
if the limited nature of the strategy is seen and
understood (Redford 1973: 7–13). Unlike Siamun
before him, who had to contend with a united
kingdom of Israel, the split between the north and
south after the death of Solomon lent itself to an
effective war of attrition. Significantly, Sheshonk did
not return to Palestine, even though the state of
Judah was weakened from the attack as well as from
the desertion of Israel. Hence, one might also
interpret Sheshonk’s action as an attempt to break
Israel’s commercial monopoly in the north which had
grown considerably at the expense of a weak Tanite
line."
The Libyan Era (Unity): Dyn 22
• "It is therefore wrong to view the policy of
Sheshonk and his immediate successors, Osorkon I
(ca. 924–889 b.c.) and Takelot I (ca. 889–874 b.c.),
as an attempt to revive the glory and power of the
NK. While it is true that the former (Sheshonk I’s
son) did involve himself to the north in Judah, this
was a minor foray (2 Chr 14:9–15) and probably
intended solely for added booty. Close connections
were also maintained with Byblos, the age-old ally
of Egypt in the Levant. At home, Osorkon I is
presumed to have provided the major temples of
Egypt (Thebes and those in the north) with a great
deal of wealth, or so says a lengthy inscription
from Bubastis."
The Libyan Era (Unity): Dyn 22
• "With Osorkon II (ca. 874–850 b.c.) we come
to the last significant king of Dyn. 22. His
reign is noteworthy for a great amount of
temple building, especially at his capital,
Tanis."
• ". . . Osorkon himself, despite his construction
projects, his close connections with Byblos
and his abortive attempt to stave off the
Assyrians at Qarqar (853 b.c.), he was unable
to halt the internal developments within
Egypt. Although he passed the throne to his
son Takelot II, with his death the land split
into warring camps."
The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23
• "Within the next twenty or so years, Egypt was
witness to the complete fragmentation of political
power so evident in the numerous small
principalities that the Assyrians later faced. At this
time one of the ostensible causes was the attempt of
Pharaoh Takelot II (ca. 850–825 b.c.) to secure his
son, a certain Osorkon, the position of high priest of
Amun-Re in Thebes. . . . Basically, the king
attempted to control the south by placing his son,
Osorkon, as pontiff. This time the resistance was too
great. For ten years the political and military
fortunes of this man waxed and waned, until he
reconciled with his opponents and then studiously
followed a policy of realism."
The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23
• "With Sheshonk III (ca. 825–773 b.c.), we
reach the end of a united kingdom. Although
the south, particularly Thebes, went its own
way, a second dynasty established itself at
Leontopolis in the East Delta. Indeed, the
country can be envisaged at this time as being
peppered with pro-Bubastite (Dyn. 22) and
pro-Leontopolite (Dyn. 23) rulers, all small
Libyan potentates. This political
fragmentation is confusing as both lines
followed their own system of regnal dating."
The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23
• "For the next eighty years or so the Egyptian state
became a country with numerous Libyan
principalities, each quasi-independent of any royal
control. The split between Dyn. 22 and 23 merely
hastened the breakup of the country."
• "This period of extreme political fragmentation did
not end abruptly. A series of internal struggles was
to be compounded by external threats from both the
south and the north, until a new and unified Egypt
could be forged. One such long-range trend was the
consolidation of the kingdom of the West Delta. By
year 36 of Sheshonk V (of Bubastis) a certain
Tefnakht of Sais claimed to be Great Chief of the
Libu and two years later absorbed the remaining
The Libyan Era (Anarchy): Dyn 23
western principalities into his realm. His later
contemporary, Osorkon IV, ruled as the
nominal head of Dyn. 22, while the contender
of Dyn. 23 faced more serious problems from
the south. Indeed, it is the south and
particularly the kingdom of Kush that
performs the main role in the next act of
Egypt."
Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)
• "The Kushites did not begin with their surprise
move northward into Egypt. One must
remember that, after the fall of the NK, the south
was severed from Egyptian control. A new power
had emerged which, although native, was very
Egyptianized and had absorbed much of NK
Amun religion. This new expansive commercial
kingdom had its capital at the Fourth Cataract
at Gebel Barkal (Napata) and held territory even
farther south. By the middle of the 8th century
b.c., this new state began a series of northern
campaigns that was to head it into the hornets’
nest of divided Egypt."
Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)
• "Under the first known king, Kashta, both Lower
Nubia and Thebes were taken. This move
downstream (i.e., northward) was not lost upon the
nominal ruler of Thebes, a Dyn. 23 ruler. However,
the Kushites possessed a unity sorely lacking in
Egypt, and a religious fervor for their god Amun
which seems to have enabled them to withstand
adversity."
• "Following Kashta’s death, his son Piankhy (or Piye
as perhaps he should be called) was the effective
ruler of a kingdom that included part of Upper
Egypt (Thebes to Elephantine) and all of Nubia, in
addition to core territory with a capital at Napata. It
was in his 20th regnal year that Piye heard of an
Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)
ominous development—the Chief of the West Delta,
a certain Tefnakht, had not merely laid claim to his
father’s territory (with its capital at Sais), but had
moved southward and found allies eastward. In
other words, a rival to the Kushite king now
existed."
• ". . . whenever the Kushite met the Libyan allies of
Tefnakht or even those cities loyal to the new ruler,
he was victorious, even under siege conditions (as,
for example, at Hermopolis and Memphis). . . .
However, Piye failed to achieve his ultimate desire:
despite the fact that Tefnakht was pushed out of
Middle Egypt and lost Memphis as well, the
Kushites were unable to penetrate far into his
Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)
• kingdom of the west. . . . Piye first received
the submission of his opponents in Memphis
after Tefnakht had fled home. The latter
eventually sent a messenger to sue for peace,
but this was only a token submission:
Tefnakht remained in complete control over
his small kingdom, and when the Kushites
withdrew southward, he was now slow in
claiming royalty for himself."
Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)
• ". . . Tefnakht, who capitalized on the absence
of any Kushites in the north by proclaiming
himself pharaoh and effective founder of Dyn.
24. Since no military or administrative
network was established by the victorious
Kushites, one wonders if their main purpose
was simply to prevent any major kingdom
coming to power in Egypt that would threaten
their control of Upper Egypt."
• "Piye’s successor and brother, Shabako (ca.
715–700 b.c.), was forced to repeat the
military actions of his predecessor, although
after conquering the north, he remained in
Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)
Egypt. Dyn. 24 was itself extinguished with
the last pharaoh, Bakenranef (Bocchoris),
dying in opposition. The new Kushite capital
was placed at Memphis and it is from this
time that a marked intellectual influence can
be seen on the Kushites."
• "There is little doubt that the Kushites and
later their successors of Dyn. 26 copied the
artistic style of the Old Kingdom (OK), but
this was probably in part due to the proximity
of private tombs at Memphis and Sakkara.
The Kushite move from Thebes as their
Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)
outlying capital in Egypt to Memphis meant a
switch from NK traditions (for example, the
cult of Amun-Re) to those of the OK."
• "Despite the apparent unity under the 25th
Dyn. kings, the fabric of Egyptian society
remained complex. The local Libyan princes
were suppressed but their lineages were alive;
resistance was quashed but nationalism
persisted. Hence, Shabako and his successors,
Shebitku (ca. 702–690 b.c.), Taharqa (690–664
b.c.), and Tanwetamani (Tanutamun) (664–
656 b.c. in Egypt), always faced the same
problem: their administration was
Kushite Era (ca. 747–664 BCE)
strained, stretching from Napata at the
Fourth Cataract up to the Mediterranean,
and they continued to depend heavily upon
local support, whether it be from an Egyptian
prince or a Libyan."
Assyrians and Kushites
• "Over a period of expansion lasting three
centuries, Assyria had moved from an insular
state to a far-ranging one. Her battles against
the Arameans had formed the nucleus of the
greatest army that the world had seen: the
north Syrian states had fallen, one by one, in
the 9th and 8th centuries b.c., the Lebanon
was taken, Phoenicia made into a client, and
the kingdom of Israel crushed in 722 b.c.
Confrontation with Egypt was inevitable.
Sargon II (722–705 b.c.) was the first NeoAssyrian ruler to encounter Egyptian or
Kushite armies. His claim was not on Egypt
Assyrians and Kushites
herself; rather, Sargon intended to control the
sea trade of the East Mediterranean through
the subjugation of the small kingdom of
Judah, Egypt’s northern neighbor, and the
capture of Philistia. However, such a policy
automatically carried the seeds of further
warfare since Judah, Philistia, or even a
Phoenician city, could always appeal to Egypt
for aid."
• "In ca. 726 b.c. Hoshea of Israel had sought
military support against the Assyrians who
were besieging his country. The king wrote to
Assyrians and Kushites
a certain “So, King of Egypt,” for aid (2 Kgs
17:4) and it has been argued that the local
Egyptian ruler was Osorkon IV, the last nominal
pharaoh of Dyn. 22. In 720 b.c. Sargon of Assyria
marched into Philistia, Egypt’s closest neighbor
to the north. At this time the king of Gaza
received logistic support from one of the generals
in the Delta. The upshot of the affair was that
Gaza fell and Raphia, the final post leading from
Palestine, was taken. However, it must be noted
that Sargon’s policy was circumscribed: he set up
a trade post but made no pretense of invading
Egypt."
Assyrians and Kushites
• "With Shabako’s triumph, Dyn. 25 now
controlled the north more or less completely.
However, relations with Assyria could not be
ignored by him. By 713/12 b.c. another minor
affair, again close to the southern border of
Philistia, broke out. This time the city of Ashdod
rebelled and the local ruler, Yamani, fled to Egypt.
He was ungraciously returned by Shabako,
whom the Assyrians designated king of Egypt,
adding that the territories now belonged to Kush.
Hence, despite a change of political climate in the
Nile Valley, relations between Assyria and Egypt
remained ostensibly cordial."
Assyrians and Kushites
• "The famous 701 b.c. clash with Sennacherib
(705–689 BCE) indicates just how extended
the interests of Assyria had become. The
Assyrian king tried to crush totally the rump
kingdom of Judah, now under the leadership
of Hezekiah. The latter sought active support
from Egypt, or from the Kushites. An army
composed of Egyptians, Kushites, and
Libyans was sent north to meet the Assyrians,
but failed and retreated after losing the battle
of Eltekeh. The Bible (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37), as
well as Assyrian sources (ANET 287–88),
Assyrians and Kushites
provide independent accounts of this conflict: the
Kushites may have been led by Taharqa, who
was not yet pharaoh; the Judeans resisted the
siege of Jerusalem; and the Assyrians failed to
achieve their desired goals. Henceforth,
Sennacherib stayed out of Judean politics,
preferring to concentrate his energies elsewhere,
and the Kushites, although defeated, had time to
regroup for further war. In a nutshell, the battle
of Eltekeh reveals the foreign policies of this
region for the next half-century or so: Egypt
would support Judah and any local city against
the superpower of Assyria, despite the latter’s
overwhelming strength and military capability."
Assyrians and Kushites
• "Late in the 670s, he fought with his enemy in
Asia. His opponent, Esarhaddon, finally
managed to defeat the Kushite king and drive
him out of Memphis ca. 671 b.c. This
apparent success ought to have resolved for
the Assyrians their perennial difficulties with
Egypt. Nevertheless, they found themselves in
the same situation as Kush herself following
Piye’s invasion almost a half-century earlier,
viz., the land was divided into small
principalities each led by a warrior class."
Assyrians and Kushites
• "It comes as no surprise that Egypt (or Kush)
revolted when the Assyrians left and a second
campaign was undertaken in 669 b.c., the date of
the death of Esarhaddon. Taharqa’s support
came from the native Egyptians or their Libyan
leaders, but so did Esarhaddon’s. It was clear
that whoever wrested effective control of the
land would be the accepted pharaoh.
Assurbanipal, Esarhaddon’s successor,
attempted twice. In 668/67 b.c. and 664 b.c. the
Assyrians marched to the Nile, first taking
Memphis and then even Thebes. Significantly, in
the interim there was another revolt and the
Kushites regained their former territories."
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
• "The following period properly speaking
belongs to the rule of a united Egypt led by
the pharaohs of Sais. It should be added by
way of clarification that Psammetichus
remembered his alliance with Assyria and
that he and his son, Necho II, aided the
tottering Assyrian Empire in the last decades
of the 7th century b.c., thereby proving their
allegiance. In Egypt itself, Psammetichus
carefully quashed his Delta rivals and took
first Memphis and then, after some
diplomatic wrangling, Thebes."
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
• "The reign of Psammetichus I (664–610 b.c.)
set the paradigm for the new united dynasty.
He carefully built up his power in the Delta,
outwitting his local rivals until the only
opposition remaining was that of Thebes. . . .
Psammetichus accomplished the annexation
of the south by 656 b.c. Noteworthy in the
first decades of his rule is the king’s reliance
upon the military."
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
• "Necho II (610–595 b.c.) succeeded his father
to the throne of Egypt and reigned during one
of the momentous periods of world history.
Already late in the life of his father, the
Assyrian Empire had begun to break up at
the death of Assurbanipal (629 b.c.). Egypt,
which may well have been promised support
and territory from the Assyrians, sided with
them against the new opposition of the
Babylonians and Medes."
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
• "In a famous encounter with the resurrected
kingdom of Judea, now led by Josiah, Necho
(biblical Neco; 1 Kgs 24:29) smashed his
opponents at Megiddo before traveling north.
Allied to Assuruballit of Assyria, Necho
fought against Nabopolassar, the king of
Babylonia. In the next few years, Assyria fell,
but the Egyptians maintained a presence in
Lebanon until Nabopolassar’s son,
Nebuchadnezzar, defeated Necho at
Carchemish in 605 b.c. Necho was able to
keep the Babylonians out of Egypt, being just
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
sufficiently powerful to prevent an invasion in
601 b.c. The result of these sudden political
and military alterations was that Egypt lost
whatever power she had accrued in Asia
during the reign of Psammetichus I. Indeed,
despite later support for the kingdom of
Judah, the best that Necho and later
Psammetichus II could do was to stave off
invasion by a triumphant Babylonia."
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
• "Internally, Necho is best known for his
attempt to build a canal between the Red Sea
and the Nile, a “proto-Suez Canal,” one may
say. This probably successful enterprise
highlights the direct continuation of his
father’s policy. Owing to the importance of
the kingdoms of Lydia and Cyprus during
this period, the Saite rulers found it politically
beneficial to maintain a strong commercial
and military presence in the East
Mediterranean."
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
• "In similar fashion, Necho supported the
circumnavigation of Africa, an event well
known to the Greeks, who later kept record of
this astounding maneuver. With Babylonia
now fully in control of the Lebanon, Necho’s
maritime strategy had the added advantage of
not involving him in fruitless land wars."
• "Necho’s son, Psammetichus II (595–589 b.c.),
did not rule long. Nevertheless, he followed an
interesting foreign policy with respect to the
north and south. Although avoiding direct
involvement with Babylonia, he actively
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
supported the state of Judah against
Nebuchadnezzar just as earlier the Libyans
and Kushites maneuvered in Palestine against
the Assyrians. It is probable that the
Egyptians reckoned correctly with their
Judean allies by not overtly committing
themselves to a policy antagonistic to
Babylon: Judah under her last king Zedekiah
was, after all, nothing more than a rump state
with no outlet to the sea."
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
• "In year 3 of Psammetichus II’s reign, a
combined Egyptian-Greek army, led by
Egyptians, traveled south into the heartland
of Nubia. This military campaign was
successful and we possess important
hieroglyphic records of the encounter which
indicate that Napata (Gebel Barkal) was
taken."
• "Psammetichus II died and was succeeded by
his son Apries, who ruled until 570 b.c. This
pharaoh continued to play an important role
in the political affairs of the east by moving
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
against the Phoenician cities of Tyre and
Sidon in an effort to prohibit their control by
Nebuchadnezzar. Although inheriting the
continual war with Babylon, for almost all of
his reign Apries was able to keep the enemy at
bay. His dependence upon Greek mercenaries
was cited by later historians, such as
Herodotus, as proof of his philohellenic
policy."
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
• "Unfortunately for Egypt, the Babylonians
were overrun by the more vigorous Medes
and Persians, led by Cyrus. With the fall of
Babylon (ca. 546 b.c.), most of the Near East
became part of the second World Empire, i.e.,
Achaemenid Persia. Cyrus then marched
against Lydia and took it. Therefore, at the
death of Amasis in 526 b.c. little remained
independent of Persia in the Near East
outside of the Nile Valley. In fact, under
Cyrus’ successor, Cambyses, plans were
already under way for an attack on Egypt.
Saite Period (664–525 BCE)
• Cambyses found natives who would support
him, and within a year, purposely not long
after the accession of the new pharaoh
Psammetichus III, the Persians moved
southwest and conquered Egypt."